they think because he inherited a recovering economy, that he himself had some major part in it.
Supernova1051
joined 2 years ago
~~as usual, devs are lost in implementing ludicrously complex scenarios for threat models that touch but a percentile of users, instead of implementing functionality that’s normal everywhere else.~~
as usual, users are lost in complaining about a privacy-centered application prioritizing on privacy-centered solutions, instead of using the hundreds of other already insecure applications that are normal everywhere else.
people really will complain about anything. It's like progress means nothing, unless a fully working solution is available day 1, it's completely worthless. bff
What is the use case for it?
The same use case as any crypto - to use as currency and pay debts.
Seems kind of pointless and a lot more tedious than just a bank transfer.
The same can be said of every crypto which doesn't hit any kind of adoption.
Why does signal include crypto nonsense in their app (I like crypto, but just can’t see any reason why it should be integrated in the app)
It aligns with Signal's mission statement to "Protect free expression and enable secure global communication through open source privacy technology." [1]. The reason it was integrated into the app was to support crypto that was "easy to use". The same way cash provides privacy by not allowing third parties to see what you're doing, they believe(d) that enabling a privacy preserving crypto wallet would further "protect free expression".
I’m sad that signal does not have support for 3rd party open source clients that could remove such features.
It's not not enabled by default and makes up for (based on github commits and pulling a random number out of my ass based on my continue following of Signal's development) less than 1% of development work since it was introduced.
Why not add support for monero instead?
Monero did not meet the technical requirements that the Signal developers were looking for at the time. Signal has commented that they would consider adding other crypto, as long as it meets the technical requirements - which I don't have so can't source unfortunately.
Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can make money on it. Failure is the goal.
Actually yes. They want to privatize it so that they can ~~make money on it~~ further exploit the working class. Failure is the goal.
Although you're right, I like to call out what it will do to everyone so it's more explicit and will hopefully click in people's minds.
Trump's is Putin's puppet. He's set to destroy whatever he can.
its more about what he represents
Happens more than we'd like to believe. The mans dad wasn't actually even dead in the case linked below. The policy will continue to make these mistakes until the consequences of their failures comes directly out of their pay.
Money could maybe provide more resources to care for people, but the core issue here is that adults who were foster children lack the support of a family - which no amount of money can fix.
billions in dollars taken from billionaires to help them for a few more years would absolutely help. maybe not all of them, but any that it does help would be well worth it. billionaires don't need more than one yacht.
100% agree.
For anyone who may disagree, consider thinking of excess wealth as excess food.
If you were in a stadium full of people that represent all of humanity, and you have more food than you could ever even eat in multiple lifetimes are you not an evil person for not sharing with those who are literally starving to death?
These are people with the amount of wealth who could easily subsidize paying a team of people to plan out how to appropriate give away most of their wealth so they don't have "excess food" by the time they die - and not have it impact their day to day lifestyle. Instead they let others starve.
nor any evidence of them selling or allowing anyone access to their servers and recent headline news backs this up
The entire point is that you shouldn't have to put your trust that a third party (Telegram or whoever takes over in the future) will not sell/allow access to your already accessible data.
There’s no evidence that MTProto has ever been cracked, nor any evidence of them selling or allowing anyone access to their servers and recent headline news backs this up
Just because it's not happening now does not mean it cannot happen in the future. If/when they do get compromised/sold, they will already have your data; it's completely out of your control.
Google, on the other hand, routinely allow “agencies” access to their servers, often without a warrant
Exactly my point. Google are using the exact same "security" as Telegram. Your data is already compromised. Side note - supposedly RCS chats between Android is E2EE although I wouldn't trust it as, like Telegram, you're mixing high/low security context, which is bad OPSEC.
WhatsApp - who you cite as a good example of E2E encryption - stores chat backups on GDrive unencrypted by default
- Security is about layers. E2EE is better than not having E2EE. Same as transport layer encryption is better than none. Would you prefer anyone on the wire can read your messages just because it's not perfect in every single use case? No, and for that same reason, E2EE is better.
- Backups can be made E2EE [1]. Is this perfect? No. But its significantly better than Telegram.
- I'm only pointing out that Whatsapp is better for privacy than Telegram - I still don't personally use or recommend it.
... can you be sure the same is true for the people on the other end of your chats?
Valid concern, but this threat exists on almost every single platform. Who's to stop anyone from taking screenshots of all your messages and not storing them securely?
[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/whatsapp-encrypted-backups
view more: next ›
the rich always get a fast pass